DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length without including any drawing figure or international search data information. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 5, it is confusing and ambiguous for reciting “one or more measurements”. How is it related to the “measurements” in line 3?
In claim 20, line 6, it is confusing and ambiguous for reciting “measurements”. How is it related to the “one or more measurements” in line 4?
In claim 27, line 3, it is unclear as to what a “nadir” is referring to.
Claims 21-26, and 28-29 are rejected for depending on claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, 21-24, 26, 30-33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong in Foreign Application EP 3910993 A1 (cited by the applicant), hereinafter referred to as Hong.
Regarding claim 1, Hong discloses A method performed by a wireless device, the method comprising: determining whether one or more conditions for triggering measurements have occurred (Figure 13 S1320 & [0116]: "The UE may perform a step of determining whether to perform the cell measurement ...""); and performing the one or more measurements based on the occurrence of the one or more conditions (Figure 13 S1330 & [0120]: "The UE may perform a step of controlling the cell measurement"), and wherein the one or more conditions for triggering measurements is based on at least one of: a timing advance value in a source cell ([0167]: "As another example, the base station may configure the location TA (Timing Advance) threshold for the corresponding satellite beam in the UE."), a distance between the wireless device and a satellite node serving a source cell or a candidate target cell ([(0168]: "The UE may refine the TA by using the location of the UE and the orbit information of the satellite based on the TA received by the base station. For example, when the UE knows the location of the UE, the distance between the UE and the satellite may be calculated from the location of the UE and the location of the satellite. Dividing the distance value by the speed of light gives the propagation delay."), an expected time for the wireless device to be served in the source cell and/or in the candidate target cell (not shown), elevation angle of the satellite node serving the source cell and/or the candidate target cell (not shown), a point in time configured by a network node is reached ([0113]: "the configuration information may include at least one of a measurement period, a threshold value, a measurement location, a timer value, ..."), detection of an identifier associated with a specific cell ([0013]: "neighbor cell information for the UE to perform a measurement operation on the cell.”, neighbor cell information = identifier), and a speed or velocity of the wireless device (not shown).
Regarding claim 11, Hong discloses A method performed by a network node, the method comprising: transmitting to a wireless device, a measurement configuration comprising one or more conditions for triggering measurements ((Figure 14 S1410 & [0125]-[0126]); and receiving a measurement report from the wireless device based on the measurement configuration (Figure 14 S1420 & [0129]-[0130]), and wherein the one or more conditions for triggering measurements is based on at least one of: a timing advance value in a source cell ([0167]: "As another example, the base station may configure the location TA (Timing Advance) threshold for the corresponding satellite beam in the UE."), a distance between the wireless device and a satellite node serving a source cell or a candidate target cell ([(0168]: "The UE may refine the TA by using the location of the UE and the orbit information of the satellite based on the TA received by the base station. For example, when the UE knows the location of the UE, the distance between the UE and the satellite may be calculated from the location of the UE and the location of the satellite. Dividing the distance value by the speed of light gives the propagation delay."), an expected time for the wireless device to be served in the source cell and/or in the candidate target cell (not shown), elevation angle of the satellite node serving the source cell and/or the candidate target cell (not shown), a point in time configured by a network node is reached ([0113]: "the configuration information may include at least one of a measurement period, a threshold value, a measurement location, a timer value, ..."), detection of an identifier associated with a specific cell ([0013]: "neighbor cell information for the UE to perform a measurement operation on the cell.”, neighbor cell information = identifier), and a speed or velocity of the wireless device (not shown).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected for substantially identical reason as claim 1, except the claim is in an apparatus claim format (i.e. a wireless device).
Regarding claim 21, Hong discloses further process of “determining whether to trigger measurement reporting to the network node based on whether the one or more measurements satisfy one or more reporting conditions." ([0113]: "According to another embodiment, the configuration information may include at least one of a measurement report trigger condition, a measurement report period, a timer value, a threshold value, and a measurement report location for the UE to perform a measurement operation on the cell and report it to the base station.").
Regarding claim 22, Hong discloses further process of “sending a measurement report to the network node" (Figure 14 $1420 & [0129]: "The base station may perform the step of receiving the cell measurement report according to the result of determining whether the UE performs the cell measurement or the cell measurement report using the configuration information at S1420.", implies the cell measurement report is sent by the UE).
Regarding claim 23, Hong discloses that "performing the one or more measurements is based at least in part on a measurement configuration received from the network node" ( Figure 13 S1330 & [0120]: " The UE may perform a step of controlling the cell measurement or the cell measurement report operation according to the determination result at S1330.").
Regarding claim 24, Hong discloses that " at least one of the measurements indicates a channel quality associated with a source cell or a candidate target cell, wherein the one or more measurements indicating a channel quality comprises a Reference Signal Received Power, Reference Signal Received Quality, Signal to Interference Noise Ratio, or Reference Signal Strength Indicator measurement." ([0166]: "the base station may configure a measurement (e.g. RSRP) threshold for the corresponding satellite beam in the UE."
Regarding claim 26, Hong discloses that “at least one of the measurements indicates a location of the wireless device" ([0164]: "if the UE has the capability to calculate/determine a location (e.g. using GNSS), the UE may calculate which location/location area/zone/reference switch area is included in the corresponding location.").
Regarding claim 30, Claim 30 is rejected for substantially identical reason as claim 11, except the claim is in an apparatus claim format (i.e. a network node).
Regarding claim 31, claim 31 is rejected for substantially same reason as claim 23, except the process is performed at the network node end instead of at the wireless device end.
Regarding claim 32, Hong discloses that “the one or more conditions indicate when the wireless device should activate the measurement configuration." ([0151]: "When the UE is in the center portions 1610, 1620, and 1630, the UE may not perform the satellite/ satellite beam/cell change within a short time. Therefore, it may skip the cell measurement. On the other hand, if the UE is out of the center of each satellite beam/cell coverage, for example, out of the small circles 1610, 1620, and 1630 indicated by dotted lines, the UE may be configured to perform measurement.").
Regarding claims 33 and 35, claims 33 and 35 are rejected for substantially same reasons as claims 24 and 26, except each process is performed at the network node end instead of at the wireless device end.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 25 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong.
Regarding claim 25, although Hong does not mention the term “pathloss” associated with a source cell, which is considered well known in the art and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to know that the RSRP equals the power from antenna minus the path loss and determining the pathloss from the RSRP, and thereby obtaining the indication of a “pathloss” associated with a source cell for providing conventional measurement parameter to further enhance the system capability and performance..
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 is rejected for substantially same reason as claim 25, except the process is performed at the network node end instead of at the wireless device end.
Claims 27-29, 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Sedin et al. in Foreign Application WO 2020/148582 A1 (cited by the applicant), hereinafter referred to as Sedin.
Regarding claim 27, Hong does not disclose that at least one of the measurements indicates a distance or differential delay between the wireless device and a reference point, the reference point corresponding to a nadir of the satellite node serving the source cell and/or a candidate target cell, which is considered well known in the art and commonly adopted in wireless communications field.
Sedin, for example, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches that "at least one of the measurements indicates a distance or differential delay between the wireless device and a reference point, the reference point corresponding to a nadir of the satellite node serving the source cell and/ or a candidate target cell." (Page 11-12, Embodiment 2: "UE determines its class by checking its distance d to the reference point.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to incorporate this well know feature of Sedin in the system of Hong, to provide required measurement parameters to further enhance the system compatibility and performance.
Regarding claim 28, Hong in view of Sedin disclose the further process of “receiving, from the network node, information indicating the reference point via common or dedicated signaling” (see Sedin Page 11, line 25: "A reference point and a set of thresholds d0, ..., dN-1 are configured "). The skilled person applies common or dedicated signaling as a matter of normal design in accordance with circumstances, without exercising inventive skills, in order to solve the problem posed.
Regarding claim 29, although Hong in view of Sedin fail to disclose that at least one of the measurements indicates a derivative of a distance or differential delay, since it is unclear as to what purpose it serves to have indication of the derivative of a distance or differential delay. The examiner hereby takes an Office Notice that it is well known and well within the level or ordinary skill in the art to obtain a derivative of a distance or differential delay by simple math calculation in order to meet/satisfy the required claim limitation as design choice.
Regarding claims 35-37, claims 35-37 are rejected for substantially same reasons as claims 27-29, except each process is performed at the network node end instead of at the wireless device end.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasoning:
Regarding the objection to the abstract, the objection has been maintained since the applicant failed to comply with the requirement of abstract in proper format, which is limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length without including any drawing figure or international search data information.
Regarding the rejection under 112(b) as allegedly being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter as the invention. A new ground of rejection to independent claims 1 and 20 has been raised, which is necessitated by the amendment. Furthermore, the 112(b) rejection to claim 27 has been maintained since the applicant still fails to further define as to what the term “nadir” stands for or is referring to.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 11, 21-24, 26, 30-33 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as allegedly being anticipated by EP Application 3910993 by Hong (Hong), the applicant argued that “Among other things, Claim 1 recites "determining whether one or more conditions for triggering measurements have occurred; and performing one or more measurements based on the occurrence of the one or more conditions." The Office Action cites to figure 13, step 1320 and the corresponding description in paragraph [0116] of Hong. Office Action, page 5. Step 1320 and the corresponding description simply disclose "the UE may perform a step of determining whether to perform the cell measurement or the cell measurement report using the configuration information at S1320." Hong, paragraph [0116]. However, reading Hong in context of the rest of the disclosure, one skilled in the art would understand that step 1320 involves, in general, checking whether or not the UE is to skip taking measurements. In particular, in the very next paragraph Hong states "the UE may determine whether the timer included in the configuration information is running. While the timer is running, the UE determine not performing the cell measurement." Hong, paragraph [0117]. The Applicant acknowledges that at some point, measurements are taken in Hong, however Hong does not explicitly disclose performing measurement upon the occurrence of one of the conditions recited in the claims. Put another way, the timer disclosed in Hong is used for skipping measurements, the expiration of the timer does not trigger performing measurements, it only triggers the end of the measurement skipping period.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since by the broadest interpretation, the claim only recites the steps of: determining whether one or more conditions for triggering measurements have occurred and performing one or more measurements based on the occurrence of the one or more conditions, and wherein the one or more conditions for triggering measurements is based on at least one of a plurality of criteria on a list. By carefully reviewing the Hong reference, it does clearly satisfy all required conditions and limitations as claimed (see the rejection as shown above). By arguing that Hong reference in some embodiments teaches away from the claimed invention is not only improper but also irrelevant.
Therefore, the examiner believes that all rejections under 102(a)(1) and 103 should be sustained at least for the reasoning as indicated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALPUS H HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-3146. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 AM - 3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, AYMAN A ABAZA can be reached at (571)270-0422. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
AH /ALPUS HSU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights